Trapped Wolf Used for Target Practice

Wolves remain in the crosshairs and the teeth of leghold traps in the Northern Rockies (seeand). Let me say upfront that I apologize for posting this brief alert, but it's essential that people who don't know about what's happening learn about the barbaric treatment of wolves, and also for the skeptics to see it up close and personal if they can stand it.

You can read about the story of a trapped and tortured wolf in a short essay in Earth Island Journal. It contains graphic language and pictures. A man who calls himself Pinching, who did the dirty deed, claimed the wolf will "make me a good wall hanger." Another person commented, "That's a dandy! Keep at it." This story and the posted comments say a lot about the enormous variation in human attitudes toward other animals and remains a topic of interest to those who study this aspect of human behavior.

I hope this story will get people who are indifferent to, or ignorant of, what's really happening to take action to stop such heinous behavior. No living being deserves to be treated this way. I'd like to believe that no one would do this to a dog or allow it to be done, and I'm sure that if the wolf were a dog people would be outraged. This isn't merely an "animal rights" issue, it's a matter of decency, and many hunters have come out strongly against the wanton, intentional, and egregious torture of wolves and other animals.

Update: I've been told that "Pinching" has been identified as Josh Bransford, a USFS employee, and you can read more about this and other issues about wolves here and here. You can also sign a petition to stop the torture of wolves here.

What kind of psychology are we supposed to be reading about here, animal or human? What kind of educational degree is a Ph.D. in Animal emotions and why is it relevant to the subject? I guess I am just confused I always thought psychology was the study of human thought processes and emotions. One of which is survival and to survive often people, especially rural people must manage the natural world around them. This isn't about anything that is considered illegal or immoral in real life but I suppose in an animal emotion doctor it will be scrutinized and spun into something grotesque. There are millions of people who are supporters of hunters trappers and land uses other than hard core, narrow minded animal protectionists ideals. This blog is a completely inappropriate place to attack and demonize them. Demonizing fellow humans who didn't break the law and are doing exactly what custom and culture dictate is ok in their region is appalling. If this man in this photograph is harmed in any way by this article, he needs to sue this publishing company. This is nothing more than another extremist intolerant viewpoint designed to damage legal activity and behaviors.

Marc,
I agree with you these kind of attacks on fellow humans are uncalled for and his whole thread in my opinion really has no business in this publication.
I do my research and try to educate the populace that is totally unfamiliar with the western lifestyle and rural culture the very culture that settled the Nation. i find it a waste of time to argue with people basing their arguments in emotion and using threats and accusation rather than healthy debate of a subject. I see both sides of the issue and I suggest that Wolves in Russia would be good reading for anyone that thinks the wolves in the west are not a concern for the city dwellers, or even google it, wolves routinely kill people in Russia, China,and other European countries and are not and never were endangered as a species. The criteria for a documented verified human attacked by a wolf is ridiculous, the attacked person must die, and there must be a witness, the wolf must also be killed and verified to be a wolf. With that stupidity for criteria its no wonder there are few documented wolf attacks in the North American Continent. I thank you for the focus of common sense in your post.

The guy in the pic only trapped the animal and then dispatched it. He did not torture the animal, he stated that someone drove by and shot a couple times. The trapper didn't do nothing wrong, he just took its pic then dispatched it and it was a legally trapped wolf. On the website the pic was stolen from, yes, I said stolen, it was posted on a website by trappers and hunters for trappers and hunters, and an anti trapper was going thru stuff on there and took it and is now using the pic and false information to harass this man. What the anti fails to mention is the trapper also took a pic of the animals foot in the trap, no blood or cuts or broken bones what so ever, and for those that don't know this it was the same style of trap that the USDA used to trap the wolves in Canada and then brought those animals to yellowstone and also Idaho and released, yes the same type and style of trap which is designed to cause no, zero, nada injuries to the trapped animal and Defenders of Wildlife also helped fund the introduction using the same type of traps. So if it didnt harm the wolves when caught and then located in the US, why do the antis lie and say it harms them now. It doesn't harm them. The only crime that was done here is by the individual that did not lawfully have the right to shoot the animal and wounding it, the trapper was told this by the game warden. It's obvious that the majority of the people posting the hateful comments on here are probably from the cities and suburbs with no real first hand knowledge of what goes on in the outdoors, just what they read by those trying to push an agenda. I hope none of the haters eat meat or wear leather shoes or clothing, because then your basically paying someone to kill the animals for you, yet criticizing those that do the killing of the animals when needed.

"The trapper didn't do nothing wrong, he just took its pic then dispatched it and it was a legally trapped wolf."

Why did he feel the need to take a picture of a wounded animal, standing in a ring of its own blood, BEFORE "dispatching" it?

Wouldn't the humane thing to do be to put it out of it's pain and misery as soon as possible?

Couldn't he take a picture of the animal after it was "dispatched"?

And why don't we just say killed instead of "dispatched"? If you're going to defend killing the animal, at least be man enough to call it what it is.

You also say that the trap didn't harm the animal. That means that the blood on the ground must have come from gunshot wounds. So, instead of putting an animal with gunshot wounds out of its misery, he stops to take a picture with the hurt, bleeding animal.

That's a pussy move, any way you look at it.

I agree with trapping and killing predatory animals to keep them from invading neighborhoods and such. But, be man enough to kill a wounded animal when you see it is wounded. Don't be a dick and have your picture taken with a bleeding, wounded animal.

Is it more humane to kill a trapped, injured, bleeding animal as soon as you see it, or is it more humane to pose for a picture with a trapped, injured bleeding animal before you kill it?

What was the necessity of posing for a picture with a trapped, injured, bleeding animal while smiling for the camera instead of placing the welfare of the animal above your need to "look like a man" to other people who enjoy killing animals.

This article has brought to light something that sport killers do not like to discuss - the fact that they get off on watching an animal die.

In psychology, this behavior has been noted in serial killers like Jeffery Dahmer,

It is a sign of a disturbed individual.

I have hunted, and would again to feed myself and others if need be. But, I have NEVER hunted for sport, and I have NEVER allowed a trapped animal to suffer when I had the power to end that suffering.

I have challenged men who do hunt for sport to a game that I thought they would find much more interesting. I have challenged them to hunt me - and I would hunt them.

Just the 2 of us, on a reserve. Only one man leaves. Sounds exciting, doesn't it?

Your sick and twisted and I may just take that as a threat. The couple seconds it took to take the pic didn't hurt anything. I've seen many times where deer have been hit by cars laying and kicking in the ditch waiting for a deputy or warden to come put it down because by law you can't put the animal, so is that torture, should the person who hit the animal with a car be charged for animal cruelty. One more thing, I've seen where so called psycholigists are more messed up than normal people and thats one of the reasons they got into it. Your above post just proves to me your not all there upstairs.So go ahead a justify your stance with your armchair antics.Hunters and Trappers are salt of the earth people, unlike the anti's that are harassing and threatening the trapper. Did you know Hitler was an animal rights advocate, yet he hated mankind just as you seem to show.

The so called jerk you are talking about did NOT have his Picture taken with the wounded wolf...the picture was photo shopped, he actually dispatched shot killed or what ever you want to call it immediately. He also reported the shooting of the trapped wolf to the fish and game department. I know alot of hunters and trappers and none of them would have used a trapped wolf for shooting sport.......I do know there are alot of ANGRY people related to the wolf issue and as long as they can take wolves legally they would not stoop to gut shooting or poisoning to control them.

As we all should be over this and many situations like this all over the world. But this is happening here in the US, the home of the gray wolf, far before it was our home, and we need to stop it. Please sign as many petitions as possible to stop the decimation of one of our most beloved and important fellow animals, the wolf.
This kind of behavior is particularly heinous and this man should be arrested and fined/jailed for animal cruelty.

I don't even want to see or read more than the images the teaser and introduction already embedded in my soul. Sometimes I really am embarrassed to be part of the human race. Makes me wonder whether animals are more evolved than humans.

"While doing my research tonight, I came across an article about humans using trapped wolves for target practice. I am so utterly disgusted and enraged that humans are capable of this kind of cruelty that I am practically speechless. However, babbler that I am, I am going to attempt to express something here that may be putting myself out on a very lonely limb. Forgive me my rant.

"Have you ever wondered whether it's possible that animals are more evolved than humans? When you think of how much time and energy we spend learning how to simplify our lives, count our blessings, ground ourselves in reality, slow down, get our priorities in order, smell the roses, learn that money doesn't buy happiness, meditate to find peace, remember to breathe...yadda, yadda, yadda...I mean, don't most animals already have this down?

"Most animals -- and I can't say all, knowing that a cat will torment a mouse for fun, so let's take the Decorah eagles as an example, since they are high on my mind and I have long-term familiarity with them as living beings now after watching them eat, breath, breed, sleep, and raise their young -- these eagles hunt for food, not fun; they don't stress over things, but take whatever comes along, and deal with it; they patiently warm their eggs as they watch life go on all around them, rocking in the treetop, listening to the sounds around them; they don't worry or hurry the hatching process; they bravely discourage invasions on their nest; they cooperate with one another as parents, and they gently and lovingly raise their young together; they matter-of-factly let their young leave the nest; they soar in the wind and play in ways we all wish could still do as we remember our childhoods. They don't have collect material objects; they have no government, no bills, no insurance, no politics; no gossip; they are totally dependent upon their own life skills and survival skills; they do their best and take what comes; and they accept death as part of life.

First let me say everyone is entitled to their opinion...however I prefer that my opinion be based on FACT. Fact an invasive species of Wolf not the native timber wolf, was introduced as a NON-essential,experimental population into the west. The result has been disastrous, the deer, elk, and moose populations are being decimated, livestock is being killed, working dogs, and backyard pets are being killed and eaten, some animals are just killed and not eaten, many are attacked and severely injured, and the one eaten are eaten alive in pain, terror and agony. So get the facts first. Secondly this is a fabricated photo and article. The trapper kills with one shot as humanely as possible and is doing a public service in trying to help in controlling an out of control population on non native APEX predators. They will and are already a threat to people and at least one human life already lost to these animals. The government has spent 100 MILLION plus dollars on this horrible wolf introduction project. Yet will not reimburse a family farm for the cattle these animals destroy. So who is really inhumane the trapper doing a public service making it safe for the kids to wait at the bus stop safely...or the wolf advocate who has no problem with a baby moose being torn to shreds or its mother having her intestines ripped out an left to die an agonizing death. Civilization as some people see it needs a major reality check and I am appalled that psychology today would even publish such a thing. And most of the so called redneck hunters are veterans that fought to protect our personal freedoms.

Hm ... I see an awful lot of OPINIONS in your response and very few FACTS. The wolves reintroduced from Canada were a different subspecies, not a different species, and they are sufficiently similar to the old wolves that were here before that they can hardly be called "invasive." As for deer, elk, and moose populations being decimated, that is also an OPINION; the FACT is that Montana has had about 150,000 elk for the past three years or so, and Idaho and Wyoming are similarly blessed with around 100,000 each. Even the anti-wolf Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation likes to boast about how many elk we have in the region; you can find the estimated numbers on their web site, along with a silly disclaimer about animal rights groups "taking their numbers out of context." In areas where the local population declined, e.g. northern Yellowstone, it is quite likely that the elk were overpopulated to begin with.

No one in the Northern Rockies has been killed or even injured by wolves since their reintroduction; this is also a FACT. http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2011/dec/16/oregon-department-fish-and-wildlife/department-fish-and-wildlife-says-there-have-been-/ Scientific studies show that surplus killing by wolves is relatively uncommon; photographs of lightly eaten carcasses supposedly "wasted" by wolves ignore the fact that wolves frequently return and eat up their kills later. Similarly, this notion of wolves routinely eating their prey alive is not something I have ever seen backed up by scientific observation. See David Mech's scientific book "The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species" for further information. (If you're truly interested in providing FACTS, it's always a great idea to cite your sources. I notice that you have not listed any.)

As for the photo itself, it was posted by a trapper on a trapping forum, trapperman.com. I saw it with my own eyes in its original location, before the trapping forum closed that page to the public to hide the evidence. It was not staged or photoshopped by animal rights advocates; it was posted BY THE TRAPPER HIMSELF. Unless you can prove otherwise, I suggest you keep your OPINIONS about the integrity of trappers to yourself, or else acknowledge that they are just that, opinions.

You would like sources you can start with reading Wolves in Russia, Then Alaskas Wolf Man, and Never Cry wolf. Then you could see the movie Crying Wolf. You can also use the freedom of information act and obtain the documents that the Wolf EIS Team Project leader sent to ED Bangs that state and I quote "Specifically on proposed establishment of non-essential, experimental population of gray wolves in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park working with the FWS on the introduction of wolves from British Columbia and/or Alberta into the experimental population area. Dated September 27, 1994 and signed by Jerry Conley the Wolf EIS Team leader. I also did some research related to government allotments and cattle graze..the ranchers pay the feds and state to graze and are doing a service by keeping the risk of wildfires down, maintaining fencing, fencing riparian areas to keep livestock and ELK out of areas of damage. They receive no reimbursements for the livestock lost to wolves from the government. That was A DOW program that stopped as soon as the target population number of wolves were reached. Also if you care to go to Wallowa County Online you can read the Wolf Watch pages there...all the livestock killed by wolves in OREGON have been on privately owned land. These YUKON wolves are the largest of the wolf subspecies, not the same as the smaller species of gray wolves that were native to the North West, just like the Mexican Redwolf is a smaller subspecies of wolf. My information comes from the biologists themselves...Russ Morgan head of the Oregon Wolf Program. Would you like some more resourses? I do my home work and do not make accusations I can not back up with facts.

You would like sources you can start with reading Wolves in Russia, Then Alaskas Wolf Man, and Never Cry wolf. Then you could see the movie Crying Wolf. You can also use the freedom of information act and obtain the documents that the Wolf EIS Team Project leader sent to ED Bangs that state and I quote "Specifically on proposed establishment of non-essential, experimental population of gray wolves in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park working with the FWS on the introduction of wolves from British Columbia and/or Alberta into the experimental population area. Dated September 27, 1994 and signed by Jerry Conley the Wolf EIS Team leader. I also did some research related to government allotments and cattle graze..the ranchers pay the feds and state to graze and are doing a service by keeping the risk of wildfires down, maintaining fencing, fencing riparian areas to keep livestock and ELK out of areas of damage. They receive no reimbursements for the livestock lost to wolves from the government. That was A DOW program that stopped as soon as the target population number of wolves were reached. Also if you care to go to Wallowa County Online you can read the Wolf Watch pages there...all the livestock killed by wolves in OREGON have been on privately owned land. These YUKON wolves are the largest of the wolf subspecies, not the same as the smaller species of gray wolves that were native to the North West, just like the Mexican Redwolf is a smaller subspecies of wolf. My information comes from the biologists themselves...Russ Morgan head of the Oregon Wolf Program. Would you like some more resources? I do my home work and do not make accusations I can not back up with facts. And if you don't think the elk herds are suffering ask the RMEF they just offered Idaho 50,000 dollars for bounty money to control the wolf over population...another fact.

That is not a fact, that is misinformation. The gray wolves that live in Canada are no different than the ones that used to live in Idaho, Montana, etc. The wolves in Canada have been naturally migrating down from Canada into Idaho, Montana, etc for years and years. Wolves can travel great distances. Montana's first documented wolves in the 1980s came from Canada. It is a myth spread by wolf haters that the reintroduced wolves are much larger and non native than the wolves that used to live in Montana, Idaho, etc years ago. Livestock and cattle are an invasive species. I bet you have no problem with these invasive animals being here huh cowgirl? If people like you did not wipe out the wolves in the first place, there wouldn't have been a need to reintroduce wolves, but if humans brought wolves down or not, wolves were and have always been natutally migrating into the western united states from Canada. This is not misinformation like you have posted, this is just cold hard facts!!! You need to educate yourself much better because it appears that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Anyone that could use the term "non-essential" for an apex predator that used to number in the hundreds of thousands and now are decidedly "too many" by those who would hate, shoot and kill them at 200 per state. Please, wolves do Not attack humans. In a world of an ever growing human population (7 billion and growing) space for wildlife becomes ever more scarce. Please learn something about biology and animal behavior!! Every stupid cattle rancher that shouldn't have cattle grazing in federal forests in the first place, are reimbursed for every kill that even has an inkling of a wolf kill. They still aren't happy. Wolves kill to survive! Of course it isn't pretty. People who think they are describing something important by saying that really don't make any sense to me. Here's a reality check for you. Most of American believe the wolf has a Major Place in the wilderness and not only a right to be there but are Necessary as apex predators. It is not biologically feasible Or Fair to manage hoofstock populations so that people have more things to shoot at. The ignorance, hatred and prejudice towards wolves continues in this country as it has for 200 years. It's a damn shame and it's time the 99% of those who Don't Hunt speak up for what's left of Their Nations Wildlife!!

Jane...Non-essential was from a document the director of the Wolf EIS program sent to Ed Bangs the Idaho director of fish and wildlife, and stated clearly the proposal was to introduce NON-ESSENTIAL EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION Of Canadian Wolves...........so I guess the Head Biologists leading up the introduction would know if it was a NON_ESSENTIAL predator...you should read the response to Captain above as well...you might learn something.

When wolves come on to private property to wound and maimed dogs no outcry.

When wolves torture our wildlife eating on the them alive sometime for days on end of blood suffering no outcry.

Why because the simple fact is these people who love only wolves are in sick twisted nutcases that glorifies wolves. They don't care about wildlife they don't care about dogs they don't care about the hard working Americans they have forced out of business due to the wolves either wiping out the game herds or livestock.

All these people care about is spreading hate to people. It is truth cult no different then Charles Manson cult.

The trapped being used to hold the wolf is the same trap scientist have used for 16 years to live trap wolves and study them releasing them unharmed. That is the facts but since you dealing with a cult they don't care about facts. Just protect their wolves so they can have their blood sport of wolves slaughtering dogs. You know the Michael Vick wannabe's/

When wolves come on to private property to wound and maimed dogs no outcry.

When wolves torture our wildlife eating on the them alive sometime for days on end suffering in pain waiting for the wolves to return to eat on them alive some more is very defintion of torture where is outcry.

Why because the simple fact is these people who love only wolves are in sick twisted cult that glorifies wolves. They don't care about wildlife they don't care about dogs they don't care about the hard working Americans they have forced out of business due to the wolves either wiping out the game herds or livestock.

All these people care about is spreading hate to people. It is true cult no different then Charles Manson cult.

The trapped being used to hold the wolf is the same trap scientist have used for 16 years to live trap wolves and study them releasing them unharmed. That is the facts but since you dealing with a cult they don't care about facts. Just protect their wolves so they can have their blood sport of wolves slaughtering dogs. You know the Michael Vick wannabe's/

Hm ... I see an awful lot of OPINIONS in your response and very few FACTS. The wolves reintroduced from Canada were a different subspecies, not a different species, and they are sufficiently similar to the old wolves that were here before that they can hardly be called "invasive." As for deer, elk, and moose populations being decimated, that is also an OPINION; the FACT is that Montana has had about 150,000 elk for the past three years or so, and Idaho and Wyoming are similarly blessed with around 100,000 each. Even the anti-wolf Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation likes to boast about how many elk we have in the region; you can find the estimated numbers on their web site, along with a silly disclaimer about animal rights groups "taking their numbers out of context." In areas where the local population declined, e.g. northern Yellowstone, it is quite likely that the elk were overpopulated to begin with.

No one in the Northern Rockies has been killed or even injured by wolves since their reintroduction; this is also a FACT. http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2011/dec/16/oregon-department-fish-and-wildlife/department-fish-and-wildlife-says-there-have-been-/ Scientific studies show that surplus killing by wolves is relatively uncommon; photographs of lightly eaten carcasses supposedly "wasted" by wolves ignore the fact that wolves frequently return and eat up their kills later. Similarly, this notion of wolves routinely eating their prey alive is not something I have ever seen backed up by scientific observation. See David Mech's scientific book "The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species" for further information. (If you're truly interested in providing FACTS, it's always a great idea to cite your sources. I notice that you have not listed any.)

As for the photo itself, it was posted by a trapper on a trapping forum, trapperman.com. I saw it with my own eyes in its original location, before the trapping forum closed that page to the public to hide the evidence. It was not staged or photoshopped by animal rights advocates; it was posted BY THE TRAPPER HIMSELF. Unless you can prove otherwise, I suggest you keep your OPINIONS about the integrity of trappers to yourself, or else acknowledge that they are just that, opinions.

To the Anonymous poster at the bottom of the page, whom I recognize by his writing style as Bruce Hemming: many, if not most, of the wolf advocates that I know are also dog lovers. However, we realize that shooting a wolf because it *might* hurt your dog is no more reasonable than shooting a neighbor's dog because it *might* hurt your dog. Sometimes wolves kill dogs, and sometimes dogs kill other dogs too; these things are best avoided by keeping one's dogs secure and under supervision close to one's house. The real "Michael Vick wannabes" are the people who *incite* dogs to go into the forest and catch wolves for the hunter or tear them to pieces, as is being contemplated in Wisconsin.

As for the trap: when Pimlott et al. used leghold traps to catch wolves for research, they specifically mentioned that they removed one of the trap's two springs "to avoid damage to the foot." Does the typical trapper in Idaho do this? I highly doubt it.

It is truly amazing how many people try to quote numbers when they havent a clue what they are even talking about. Its the mentality of those individuals like "cowgirl" that truly support republican ideologies..... They are in it for nothing more than the money for their election campaigns, while sneaking legislation through with a rider, because their bill has no merit on its Own!!! This is out of RMEFS own mouth.... http://www.rmef.org/AllAboutElk/ElkInHistory

Ignorant individuals should really try to do some research before appearing to be an idiot...

Wolves are not even considered as a threat when you look at USDA depts numbers here, Cattle Death Loss report http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CattDeath/CattDeath-05-12-2011.pdf

People that dont do the research before having an opinion should simply learn to keep their mouth shut!

http://www.rmef.org/AllAboutElk/ElkInHistory

RMEF Excerpt:
Declining with Settlement
Elk probably thrived throughout North America until Europeans began settling the continent. The settlers hunted elk for meat and also killed the animals that ate crops, damaged property, or seemed to compete with livestock. They affected elk most seriously by converting natural habitats and migration corridors into agricultural land, home sites and cities. People began noticing the decline of elk populations as early as 1785. In that year, Thomas Pennant wrote a book about North American natural history titled Arctic Zoology. He noted that elk numbers seemed to be decreasing.

Elk populations continued to decline as the settlements grew and spread. The remaining animals were almost wiped out when, in the late 1800s, market demands encouraged people to kill elk for a few prized products -- the elk's hide, its antlers and sometimes just the canine teeth. (Elk canines are made of ivory and have been sought by different groups of people in North America.) "

Hm ... I see an awful lot of OPINIONS in your response and very few FACTS. The wolves reintroduced from Canada were a different subspecies, not a different species, and they are sufficiently similar to the old wolves that were here before that they can hardly be called "invasive." As for deer, elk, and moose populations being decimated, that is also an OPINION; the FACT is that Montana has had about 150,000 elk for the past three years or so, and Idaho and Wyoming are similarly blessed with around 100,000 each. Even the anti-wolf Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation likes to boast about how many elk we have in the region; you can find the estimated numbers on their web site, along with a silly disclaimer about animal rights groups "taking their numbers out of context." In areas where the local population declined, e.g. northern Yellowstone, it is quite likely that the elk were overpopulated to begin with.

No one in the Northern Rockies has been killed or even injured by wolves since their reintroduction; this is also a FACT. http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2011/dec/16/oregon-department-fish-and-wildlife/department-fish-and-wildlife-says-there-have-been-/ Scientific studies show that surplus killing by wolves is relatively uncommon; photographs of lightly eaten carcasses supposedly "wasted" by wolves ignore the fact that wolves frequently return and eat up their kills later. Similarly, this notion of wolves routinely eating their prey alive is not something I have ever seen backed up by scientific observation. See David Mech's scientific book "The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species" for further information. (If you're truly interested in providing FACTS, it's always a great idea to cite your sources. I notice that you have not listed any.)

As for the photo itself, it was posted by a trapper on a trapping forum, trapperman.com. I saw it with my own eyes in its original location, before the trapping forum closed that page to the public to hide the evidence. It was not staged or photoshopped by animal rights advocates; it was posted BY THE TRAPPER HIMSELF. Unless you can prove otherwise, I suggest you keep your OPINIONS about the integrity of trappers to yourself, or else acknowledge that they are just that, opinions.

To the Anonymous poster at the bottom of the page, whom I recognize by his writing style as Bruce Hemming: many, if not most, of the wolf advocates that I know are also dog lovers. However, we realize that shooting a wolf because it *might* hurt your dog is no more reasonable than shooting a neighbor's dog because it *might* hurt your dog. Sometimes wolves kill dogs, and sometimes dogs kill other dogs too; these things are best avoided by keeping one's dogs secure and under supervision close to one's house. The real "Michael Vick wannabes" are the people who *incite* dogs to go into the forest and catch wolves for the hunter or tear them to pieces, as is being contemplated in Wisconsin.

As for the trap: when Pimlott et al. used leghold traps to catch wolves for research, they specifically mentioned that they removed one of the trap's two springs "to avoid damage to the foot." Does the typical trapper in Idaho do this? I highly doubt it.

I notice you didn't say anything about the death threats put out by the wolf cult. I guess you can't handle that documented fact can you. One side and bias in your response.

Anyone with half a clue on how State's tell the public about elk population understands it is base on computer model not actual field studies. MTFWP can keep putting the same number up has no reflection on the facts in the field. Which you are clearly lacking in understanding.

No one has been attack by wolves is laughable base on pure ignorance Kenton Carnegie and Candice Berner would argue you are fool and liar if they and not been killed by wolves.

Anyone can play numbers game and be the fool if big game numbers are so great and wolves are not hurting them then explain why the moose season around Jackson Hole that once supported 425 hunters a year now is today at ZERO kind of make you look like a fool with no facts doesn't it. Oh and Montana has so many elk they close the late season Gardiner Montana elk down to ZERO also. I guess when you do poor research you miss the facts. So what was that 1600 tags use to be issue to people is now ZERO cause the wolves wipe out the elk in the area.

I suggest you actual learn to research and find facts next time before you make a complete fool of yourself.

Bruce.....nobody's going to buy your wolf cult, Michael Vic schtick here, and people are going on facts not rhetoric. You're not going to gain much traction, probably best if you go back to your squirrel traps.

Wolves are wild animals. Any wild animal can be dangerous, but I have to laugh at these anti-wolf nuts who try to have you believe that wolves are so dangerous. Here is one cold hard fact that none of these emotional anti-wolf nuts can't refute, since being reintroduced into Idaho and ys 16-17 years ago, not one human has been killed. You're more likely to be shot by a hunter mistaken you for a bear than to be killed by a wolf.

The human race has already eliminated them all but the few that are left..... pull your head out and realize the truth! Stop blaming animals that were here long before any of you ever showed up in this country!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is sad that you have to blame the wolf, when in fact its nothing more than the human race eliminating everything here just like they did in Europe before coming here to do the same thing.... Read up on history before blaming wolves for something you have done! The animals were here and HEALTHY long before your kind showed up!

I notice you didn't say anything about the death threats put out by the wolf cult. I guess you can't handle that documented fact can you. One side and bias in your response.

Anyone with half a clue on how State's tell the public about elk population understands it is base on computer model not actual field studies. MTFWP can keep putting the same number up has no reflection on the facts in the field. Which you are clearly lacking in understanding.

No one has been attack by wolves is laughable base on pure ignorance Kenton Carnegie and Candice Berner would argue you are fool and liar if they and not been killed by wolves.

Anyone can play numbers game and be the fool if big game numbers are so great and wolves are not hurting them then explain why the moose season around Jackson Hole that once supported 425 hunters a year now is today at ZERO kind of make you look like a fool with no facts doesn't it. Oh and Montana has so many elk they close the late season Gardiner Montana elk down to ZERO also. I guess when you do poor research you miss the facts. So what was that 1600 tags use to be issue to people is now ZERO cause the wolves wipe out the elk in the area.

I suggest you actual learn to research and find facts next time before you make a complete fool of yourself.

You bring up a couple of *localized* areas in which the elk or moose populations have declined, and apparently generalize from that to this idea that wolves are "decimating" their prey. You bring up a couple of isolated wolf fatalities that did not occur in the Northern Rockies (one of which may not even be genuine; experts disagreed about whether Carnegie was killed by wolves or a bear), and assume from these that wolves are a clear and present danger to everyone; meanwhile, you ignore the fact that the moose whose population you are so worried about ALSO attack people; they injure 5-10 Alaskans per year, for example. (http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/dangerous-moose.htm) If we can handle having moose around, we can handle having wolves.

Local declines in prey herds are NOT BAD THINGS: they help vegetation recover from being overbrowsed, etc. The only people hurt by local declines in ungulate herds are the hunters who are too lazy or too cheap to drive somewhere else to hunt. Overall, the elk population in the NRM states remains healthy. There are also other factors such as habitat degradation that have contributed to the decline of the moose. Moose naturally exist at low population densities, and wolves or no wolves, they won't sustain a large population if they don't have enough to eat. The same study which examined the kill utilization of wolves near Jackson Hole, I believe, also showed that they take relatively few moose.

You should also consider the fact that Montana FWP has actually tried to REDUCE the elk population. To quote Nick Gevock of the MT Standard, "a major source of predation on elk in Montana [was] the 2003 Legislature. It mandated that FWP reduce numbers and since then we’ve been pounding elk with second tags, extended seasons and liberal regulations. Where’s the outrage about that over predation?"

I know, it's convenient to blame the wolves for population declines -- it helps take the spotlight off human hunters and what they might be doing to contribute. But it won't wash.

I have been following these stories internationally and am appalled by the brutality of supposedly civilised men. The calibre of a man (and of a society) is judged on his humanity to others more vulnerable. This torture is being done in the name of 'sport' and is being justified by those hunters in the name of local culture and history. The reality however, is that this is a barbaric and inhumane action that glorifies extreme torture and suffering on the wolf's part for psychopathic pleasure. A sad reflection on the individual and society in the eyes of the rest of the world. It is one thing to hunt and kill cleanly with one shot, it is another to sadistically and intentionally trap, torture and prolong death and then glorify in it as shown in the recent photo's circulating around the world in the various social media. There are far more effective non-lethal preventative control measures that can be used to prevent livestock predation. Local USA research supports that wolves contribute to

Sure are a lot of dead Great Pyrenees from wolves lately. Any other half hair brained idea's? Mybe firecrackers? Or those little 12 volt 5 watt flashing yellow construction lights set on fence posts? Oooo, those will really scare those little wolves, Oooo, they are shaking and running away as we speak!

If there are a lot of dead Great Pyrenees then SHAME on the farmer or rancher for not having sufficient dogs to predator ratio's. I own both this breed and also Maremma's and understand their important role in stock protection and predation. They are a critical financial investment but they cannot do their job if ranchers are too short sited as to invest in them and in sufficient numbers.

It is not uncommon in Australia to run several lots of X30+ such dogs with a mob of sheep or cattle on vast open acreage where Dingoes (our native dog) and worse feral dogs and introduced foxes prey on them. These dogs are amazing workers and instinctively work in tandem with each other with some advancing on the predator to deter them and others calling the stock into them and circling around them to keep them together for protection. They all have their instinctive bonds and roles to do and they do it. The stock learn to understand their different levels of escalating barks and respond by milling together as if on command. However, if you have only 1 or 2 such dogs and high predator numbers then off course they will fail but they will die fighting and protecting their stock until the end at the expense of their own lives.

Where we use them there is little stock losses as predators learn to avoid them because of their boundary warnings and scenting. They need to be worked in with the stock over time to get the stock used to them and it takes an adult up to 4 years to mature so you need to mix your dogs with young adults paired with mature ones. If there are high predator numbers then you need to increase the dog ratio. If this is still an issue then perhaps ranchers need to swab to the more aggressive LGD - the Turkish Anatolian. Also if these dogs are being preyed upon then they need to wear their spiked collars to actually protect them as have been used for centuries by shepherds the world over. Ranchers and farmers have to learn to work with these breeds, develop that relationship and bond and understand them as they are nothing like normal dogs but they are an amazing breed of dogs and will save losses and money. I have read a lot on their use in the USA as well as here and in Europe, Africa and there are primary industry guides to teach people their usage. They are also being used for conservation of endangered species both here in Australia and in Africa - where the Anatolian will protect stock against Cheetah's so their ranchers won't kill the Cheetah.

Wolves will avoid going where LGDs are because they will have to work hard to get to the stock and look for easier alternatives such as deer, moose and elk which should be their right.

I have been following these stories internationally and am appalled by the brutality of supposedly civilised men. The calibre of a man (and of a society) is judged on his humanity to others more vulnerable. This torture is being done in the name of 'sport' and is being justified by those hunters in the name of local culture and history. The reality however, is that this is a barbaric and inhumane action that glorifies extreme torture and suffering on the wolf's part for psychopathic pleasure. A sad reflection on the individual and society in the eyes of the rest of the world. It is one thing to hunt and kill cleanly with one shot, it is another to sadistically and intentionally trap, torture and prolong death and then glorify in it as shown in the recent photo's circulating around the world in the various social media. There are far more effective non-lethal preventative control measures that can be used to prevent livestock predation. Local USA research supports that wolves contribute to

Non-native cattle are causing far more ecological destruction than native wolves, bears, mountain lions, etc. ever could. We need to get non-native cattle off of public land, OUR LAND, so the land can be restored.

Ranchers lease public land dirt cheap, they get compensated for confirmed wolf kills, they are subsidized to the tune of 500 million a year by taxpayers, Wildlife Services kills everything that moves on their behalf, and they have Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in their back pockets. What in the world, then, do they have to complain about?

They are completely pampered by the federal govt. at the expense of taxpayers and at the expense of native wildlife. I for one am sick and tired of my tax dollars being used to kill native wildlife and habitat while destructive, non-native livestock is protected by the federal govt.

Also, since it has been claimed by many that livestock and wildlife are being "slaughtered" by wolves, here's some data: According to the USDA, wolves were responsible for 0.23% of livestock losses in 2010. That is less than one quarter of one percent. And, elk populations are at or above target levels set by state agencies in most areas of the region.

It's obvious that the killing of wolves in the Northern Rockies is rooted in Big Bad Wolf myths, fear, and hatred that originated in medieval Europe and beyond. It certainly is not based on sound, scientific principles or ethical wildlife management. This is evidenced by the available data that is being ignored in favor of the ranching and hunting industries, and by the kinds of despicable, unethical actions demonstrated by the trapper in this article and others like him.

This is the 21st Century. We have come a long way in realizing the positive impact that apex predators like wolves have on natural ecosystems. That is why they were reintroduced--to right a severe wrong that was done when they were exterminated from the region in past centuries. Indeed, it's time for those who fear, hate, and misunderstand wolves to realize their value and importance, to respect their right to be here, and to stop living in the past.

Puhleeze, do not use the national statistics on livestock losses and compare it to the losses in wolf occupied states or even counties, local losses are what matter economically not national statistics on livestock losses. Anyone who persists in spinning that data into justification for the harm that has become prevalent in these programs is only furthering the damage long term and has no credibility on this issue. Get something other than talking points off greenie websites. And I have certainly seen a whole lot more death threats directed at this poor man than at any other people who are mad about the photo. Not one word about that however, so one has to wonder where the balance in this article is. As for apex predators there is a place for them, but it isn't where human beings are attempting to earn a living in a rural area where human impact is documented proven and ongoing.

Non-native cattle are causing far more ecological destruction than native wolves, bears, mountain lions, etc. ever could. We need to get non-native cattle off of public land, OUR LAND, so the land can be restored.

Ranchers lease public land dirt cheap, they get compensated for confirmed wolf kills, they are subsidized to the tune of 500 million a year by taxpayers, Wildlife Services kills everything that moves on their behalf, and they have Ken Salazar in their back pockets. What in the world, then, do they have to complain about?

They are completely pampered by the federal govt. at the expense of taxpayers and at the expense of native wildlife. I for one am sick and tired of my tax dollars being used to kill native wildlife and habitat while destructive, non-native livestock is protected by the federal govt.

Also, since it has been claimed by many that livestock and wildlife are being "slaughtered" by wolves, here's some data: According to the USDA, wolves were responsible for 0.23% of livestock losses in 2010. That is less than one quarter of one percent. And, elk populations are at or above target levels set by state agencies in most areas of the region.

It's obvious that the killing of wolves in the Northern Rockies is rooted in Big Bad Wolf myths, fear, and hatred that originated in medieval Europe and beyond. It certainly is not based on sound, scientific principles or ethical wildlife management. This is evidenced by the available data that is being ignored in favor of the ranching and hunting industries, and by the despicable, unethical actions demonstrated by this trapper and others like him.

This is the 21st Century. We have come a long way in realizing the positive impact that apex predators like wolves have on natural ecosystems. That is why they were reintroduced--to right a severe wrong that was done when they were exterminated from the region in past centuries. Indeed, it's time for those who fear, hate, and misunderstand wolves to realize their value and importance, to respect their right to be here, and to stop living in the past.

I've been wondering for some time now... if hunters... trappers... outfitters et al are so terribly concerned about the undulate population declining so severely... why don't they stop hunting these animals? Why are they instead ... looking for ways to add wolves to their target list by accusing them and then passing a death sentence upon them for simply trying to survive the only way they are able? Are any of these people that kill undulates so destitute that they can not feed their families without hunting them into extinction like a gazillion other species that once graced the planet? I just do not understand a hunter putting forward the argument that wolves kill for sport when that is precisely why they kill the same prey themselves. What am I missing? Believe me... if you think these are the only people out to eradicate wolves... you haven't run into many free rangers yet. Their justification for such hatred stems from a fear that wolves will eventually be responsible for ending their subsidized free range grazing paradigm. Looks as if the wolf don't have much of a future... and perhaps neither do we.

I never used to have an opinion about wolves because we always have had Timber wolves in Idaho. What we have now is Canadian wolves. And they are, at a minimum more than two times the size of what we had before. (Except the females which are still larger than a male timber wolf)

I will not get into the legality or the propriety of eliminating these things. They are bigger than any animal I have seen in my life. They are a threat to me, my kids, grandkids, and animals. I found out the hard way that a five shot revolver is inadequate for protection from these guys. I have a semi automatic now. And hopefully I will get into a pack of several. I don't care if they have a spirit, or a family, they are all killers. I feel much more sorry for the Canadian Geese whose nest gets washed out during high water. Geese actually cry for their babies. But as far as wolves are concerned. We will take them out one pack at a time. And we also are learning where the dens are. Not a big deal I guess, but in 2 months they will be in the packs. See them shoot them.

So, you haven't seen a bear or elk? Both of these animals are much bigger than wolves. Those that hate wolves like you do Kay Turley, tend to make up a lot of lies about them. The wolves in Idaho are around 100-110 pounds with some reaching 120 pounds. Far from the big monsters people like you claim they are. You need to accept the fact that wolves are going to be in Idaho for many years to come. If you don't like living with wildlife, you always have the option of moving.